After producing such works of art with his own name on the side I still cant figure our why in the world Penske would stick around after the series went to spec cars.........

Beautiful cars!

No desire to turn this wonderful thread into a business (ugh) or political (ick) discussion. but it became increasingly difficult for even Penske to compete as a carmaker in the CART theater, and the team ran Reynards (albeit very refined ones) its last few years in the series. Building one's own chassis went from being an advantage to a burden, IMO. Now back to the hardware.

Building one's own chassis went from being an advantage to a burden, IMO. Now back to the hardware.

The PC27 was their last 'in house', I think. I think it was better than it showed, which wouldn't have been tough. Running with Goodyear tires and an Ilmor engines was a pretty serious disadvantage. Couple that with drivers that were (at that point) a little...meh... was pretty much the kiss of death.

thank you for your observation about the use of quick pins in that application - I wouldn't classify it as nit-picking at all. On the face of it the pins are a nice solution - if you are a mechanic. If you are an engineer you would prefer the bolted joint arrangement you described, for all the reasons you outlined. When I joined Penske I was warned by a former Tyrrell colleague who had made a similar move to another CART team that the mechanics at Penske had a reputation for being "powerful". It took a few years to impose the discipline of making sure that we weren't making things easy for the mechanics at the expense of incremental losses in performance, or "good practice' of the type you described. A similar issue was the use of quick-pull pins for the underwing support stays. These are all very well for making it quick to remove the underwing, but the slop they added made achieving the "50 lb" deflection standard more difficult. If one can explain in sensible terms to the mechanics why you need to make their life that little bit harder then I've always found them to be receptive to the change. If you just arrogantly impose change on them without explaining your reasoning then you will get much more "push back".

Thanks

Nigel

Nigel,

I've worked as a design engineer in both aerospace and racing. I definitely agree that in racing, the pit crew usually seem to have more design authority than the engineers. Of course, I've also experienced something similar in aerospace. I spent a few years working as a mechanical systems engineer on the US Space Shuttle program. During the design reviews I participated in at NASA for shuttle hardware I had designed, any design changes requested by the flight crew (astronauts), regardless of how insignificant they might have seemed, were approved without question.

re-reading my posting about making sure we didn't introduce loss of performance, I realised I didn't place enough emphasis on the fact that many, many more things were done to help make the car more serviceable than were refused. As you would expect, each year's new car included a great many changes inspired by the desire to make the car tidier, easier to service and more reliable. Personally I really enjoyed this part of my job - I would never tire of just looking at the car, trying to figure out what we could do next to improve it. I'm sure this applies to most engineers, and the nice thing about race cars is that they always offer plenty of opportunity for improvement. I always think nothing looks as untidy and old-fashioned as last year's car.

As I mentioned before, the crew chiefs in the early 90s were very protective of their position, but it was never the case that they could actually overrule engineering - even if they thought they could. As with all things in life, working with people is better than working against them, and I found that it was much more enjoyable and productive to develop a trusting, respectful relationship. No surprises there.

Using your shuttle pilot example, our attitude to drivers requests was similar - they were almost always implemented, and we were happy to do them because there were usually good reasons for what they wanted. On the other hand, there seems to be an inverse relationship between driver "fussiness" and performance. I worked with a mediocre F1 driver who wanted his seat moved around 1/4" here and there all the time, which was a bit of a hassle to deal with and which made no difference to his performance, whereas Paul Tracy used the same Emerson Fittipaldi seat moulding for years and years and just got on with the job very successfully.

.......... On the other hand, there seems to be an inverse relationship between driver "fussiness" and performance. I worked with a mediocre F1 driver who wanted his seat moved around 1/4" here and there all the time, which was a bit of a hassle to deal with and which made no difference to his performance, whereas Paul Tracy used the same Emerson Fittipaldi seat moulding for years and years and just got on with the job very successfully.

Nigel,

I was primarily a design engineer for the race team, but I often worked the races when they were short-handed. From what I saw, I'd have to agree with your comments about driver "fussiness". The best drivers usually seemed to take less time to get their chassis set-ups right.

I don't want to derail this thread since it contains awesome info and visual eye candy.

But as some out here perhaps know, I have written a website piece about the PC23 in its most legendary configuration, the `Indy only` PC23-265E.I have had greet, invaluable help of some of the most active posters in this thread: Tony Matthews, Nigel Beresford and Patrick MorganThank you for that gentlemen. And you're doing a great job over here too.

Recently I have been able to add another chapter to this website piece: One in which Chuck Sprague, the team manager of Team Penske that year told his memories about his experiences of that year.

I know that for many readers of this thread, pics of the actual cars like the ones Tony and Patrick share with us are more enjoyable then reading.But nevertheless, allow me to put in the link to this piece by Chuck Sprague and enjoy his memories about some incredible experiences with an extra-ordinary car that wrote a piece of motor racing history rarely seen before and not thereafter anymore.

Thanks Henri, a very interesting article. However, I don't agree that "pics of the actual cars like the ones Tony and Patrick share with us are more enjoyable then reading." Patrick and Nigel's comments are fascinating and bring the whole event alive. The pictures support their remeniscencies, but it nice to be able to provide the occasional contemporary photograph.

Thanks Henri, a very interesting article. However, I don't agree that "pics of the actual cars like the ones Tony and Patrick share with us are more enjoyable then reading." Patrick and Nigel's comments are fascinating and bring the whole event alive. The pictures support their remeniscencies, but it nice to be able to provide the occasional contemporary photograph.

Tony,

I think you would be surprised to know how many more people would actually buy a book with lots of pictures and little text instead of the other way around.Maybe among the members of this historians forum that ratio is a bit different because `historians`are also int facts, data etc. But for race fans in general.

I can quote from personal experience with that.Maybe you know that I am co-writer on two books about the Novi Indycars, together with my friend George Peters from Hazelwood MO.Our well respected fellow forum member Karl Ludvigsen also published a book on the Novis. And I have heard people telling me that they liked the Ludvigsen book better then the one by George and me because of the larger format pictures and not so much text to go through.

Nothing agains Karl's book by the way, on the contrary: He included pics of which I wished George and I could have used them too since they are better and more informative.But it illustrates the fact that racing related books sell better when you include more pictures.

Since the eye candy factor is so important, that makes me so proud and happy about your contributions to that PC23 website. You would be surprised to know how many positive comments I got that the chapter about the actual engine contained so many engine parts pictures! And you know who I owe for that....

Back in 1952 Ferrari tried to qualify at Indy with their 375 F1 (4.5 liter V12) car that had some 380 or so HP. The most common opponents they were up to were powered by the Offenhauser (4.5 liter in line four) that at best had 330 to 350 hp.

Three of the four entered Ferraris failed to qualify because though the V12 engine was more powerful the the Offy, the big Fourbanger had so much torque that the acceleration of the Offy brigade out of the corners was much better then that of the Ferraris. Perhaps the Ferrari was faster, but it took more time and track length to reach the same speeds as the offy brigade reached, let alone to surpsss these speeds....

A classic case of "Torque making the difference....." or to play with your words: "Power is meaningless without torque"

Indy has seen another great example of torque `saving the day` for underpowered cars. The STP turbine cars that had a fantastic acceleration out of the turns courtesy massive TurbineTorque combined with 4WD while powerwise the 1967 Side-By-Side was in the ballpark compared with its opponents. But the 1968 Lotus cars were actually rather underpowered on race day,

And a photo of the original 265D motor. Although the PC-23 is always talked about in terms of the pushrod the D motor was a really well sorted, reliable engine despite only pushing out a mere 850ish BHP....

Thanks for getting this thread back on track (!) Patrick. I have a few pages of similar exploded drawings of Ilmor pumps done, I think, by Ian Watson. I would have been delighted if I'd been asked to do them, but I get the impression that there is an uncontrollable urge that bedevilles engineers every now and then, and they have to do exploded drawings of their designs. I feel a demarcation dispute coming on, Brothers, this is the sort of job destruction up with which we will not put. To the barricades, bring your own brazier...

Something that has just occured to me - whatever happened to the archive of Ilmor engineering drawings? Were they removed before Mercedes took over, or did they remain? I sincerely hope that they still exist in some form. I've got a load of prints...

Yeah, that's an embarrassing topic. Reconciling Penske's ingrained, innate, DNA-level culture of the highest standards of presentation with the practical requirements of making racing cars as light as possible was always a very difficult problem. The bottom line is that in spite of continuously imploring the (in-house) paint shop to keep weight gain in mind, they just couldn't help themselves. It's a problem that endures to this day. Mitigating factors are that the Rocket Red (or "orange" as my colleagues insisted on calling it) available in the States was not allowed to contain the anti-fading additives used by, say, McLaren, so the cars had to be frequently re-painted in short turnaround periods. Frequent repaints were also required because of the amplified sandblasting effect of running such high speeds on ovals. The inevitable result was the paint build-up you see before you. Not making excuses, just providing reasons. Besides, you couldn't criticise the paint shop for having and achieving the highest standards.

Is it urban legend that F1 teams, or at least McLaren, strip and repaint between races? Granted they don't have as many back to back events as Indycar and do have cubic dollars for those sorts of things.

On the other hand, one of the delights I discovered in reviewing Penske/Marlboro documents from the Tobacco Master Settlement publications, was that there was an itemised expenditure just to cover paint and graphics. And it was a decent amount for what was a 'simple' livery.

Is it urban legend that F1 teams, or at least McLaren, strip and repaint between races? Granted they don't have as many back to back events as Indycar and do have cubic dollars for those sorts of things.

On the other hand, one of the delights I discovered in reviewing Penske/Marlboro documents from the Tobacco Master Settlement publications, was that there was an itemised expenditure just to cover paint and graphics. And it was a decent amount for what was a 'simple' livery.

Don't know about the F1 thing, but I sort of doubt it. Not in my time, but maybe someone else knows for sure. We had 3 full time painters at Reading for the IndyCar team, and they were always flat out. Although the Marlboro livery was apparently quite simple, it took a lot of work and time to do the prep / primer / white / red / clearcoat to the standards required.

Before the current IRL car, teams put an unbelievable number of man hours in to body fit and shut line closure prior to painting. As far as I know, that is not allowed on the latest car. Paying that attention to body fit detail absolutely made a measurable difference on the stopwatch (and don't ask because I'm not saying..).

I think a lot of schemes nowadays are a base colour with vinyl 'transfers' stretched/laid on top. However, the wonderful silver McLaren scheme has a lot of airbrush-effect shading, which may or may not be vinyl. Looks sprayed, but I can believe it is vinyl if I'm told by someone who knows.

Some time ago there was a thread about, or included a few posts about, paint weight, and I stuck my neck out as Patrick had told me how much the paint weighed on the PC26 when it was stripped. I was told that my figure was rubbish. Was it 40 lb? Seeing that lot, I can well believe it!

I have always known that colour as Rocket Red, and it ain't orange, although it can take on a pinkish-orangy tint when it fades. On my cutaways I used a red that was not nearly as exciting as the real paint, but I was never able to solve the problem of impermanance. Gouache is available in flourescent or Ostwald colours, but they don't last. I used small amounts for the Wiggins clips, but they went off after a couple of years, turning a pale brownish-pink.

A lot(all?) NASCAR entries are wrapped these days. They'd have to be when you see some of their designs.

I was once told Indy 500 entries in particular are painted, including the sponsor logos, because the sharp edge on the decal isn't good for airflow. Especially when you have several running up the nose. I guess layers of clearcoat isn't enough.

A lot(all?) NASCAR entries are wrapped these days. They'd have to be when you see some of their designs.

I was once told Indy 500 entries in particular are painted, including the sponsor logos, because the sharp edge on the decal isn't good for airflow. Especially when you have several running up the nose. I guess layers of clearcoat isn't enough.

Re NASCAR - my info's probably out of date.

Re Indy Cars - for sure decals are undesirable compared to paint or transfers. It's not the nose you want to worry about most though, it's the wing surfaces. It's incredible how many people still don't pay any attention to it.

I think a lot of schemes nowadays are a base colour with vinyl 'transfers' stretched/laid on top. However, the wonderful silver McLaren scheme has a lot of airbrush-effect shading, which may or may not be vinyl. Looks sprayed, but I can believe it is vinyl if I'm told by someone who knows.

Some time ago there was a thread about, or included a few posts about, paint weight, and I stuck my neck out as Patrick had told me how much the paint weighed on the PC26 when it was stripped. I was told that my figure was rubbish. Was it 40 lb? Seeing that lot, I can well believe it!

I have always known that colour as Rocket Red, and it ain't orange, although it can take on a pinkish-orangy tint when it fades. On my cutaways I used a red that was not nearly as exciting as the real paint, but I was never able to solve the problem of impermanance. Gouache is available in flourescent or Ostwald colours, but they don't last. I used small amounts for the Wiggins clips, but they went off after a couple of years, turning a pale brownish-pink.

Yes, there's the famous case of the uncompetitive Zakspeed F1 car, that after a seasons racing, had the paint stripped off & the bodywork was found to be 7 kgs lighter!The famously uncompetitve BAR/Honda F1 'Earth Car' scheme was totally wrapped. Not too bad looking but the tighter radii & corners resulted in creases & 'cut & shut areas, which annoyed the aerodynamisists no end. The extra drag would have also increased the fuel consumption. Not quite what the slogan had in mind for saving energy....

To keep things in perspective with regard specifically to Patrick's PC23, bear in mind that it is an extreme case. The car had clearly been used as a show car prior to Patrick receiving it, and, as can be seen from the layers of paint exposed by sanding the chassis, had been painted in a non-Marlboro Penske livery (i.e. Bettenhausen Alumax) early on in its life. If the car's post competition life was as a show car then it's highly unlikely that anyone would have wanted to spend the time and money to strip it back to bare carbon prior to periodically "freshening up" faded paint.

What I'm saying is, although we've been discussing the cumulative effect of repainting unstripped chassis (and this undoubtedly happens with ALL teams because of in-season time constraints), the photo kind of casts Penske in an unfair light - in reality it's not quite as extreme as it would appear.

To keep things in perspective with regard specifically to Patrick's PC23, bear in mind that it is an extreme case. The car had clearly been used as a show car prior to Patrick receiving it, and, as can be seen from the layers of paint exposed by sanding the chassis, had been painted in a non-Marlboro Penske livery (i.e. Bettenhausen Alumax) early on in its life. If the car's post competition life was as a show car then it's highly unlikely that anyone would have wanted to spend the time and money to strip it back to bare carbon prior to periodically "freshening up" faded paint.

What I'm saying is, although we've been discussing the cumulative effect of repainting unstripped chassis (and this undoubtedly happens with ALL teams because of in-season time constraints), the photo kind of casts Penske in an unfair light - in reality it's not quite as extreme as it would appear.

Sorry Nigel I should have made this point. As you can see the early layers are Bettenhousen and after that's it's been repainted many times in Marlboro livery. In places the paint is 3mm think. 7KG have so far come off the tub alone and it's not nearly stripped....

As I understand it most front of the grid F1 teams repaint every time they get chance - obviously with the increased number of fly always this is becoming more difficult.

Not at all - I hope I didn't come across as being stroppy - that was far from intended. I was just seeking to explain the reason for the particularly extreme nature of the paint build up in your car's case. I didn't want those who were perhaps unfamiliar with the business to be under the impression that it's completely typical. As I say, it is definitely a problem teams have to deal with.

Picture #5 Patrick. Where is the access for the bolts holding the engine to the tub? Great design, engine sits in an insert of sorts.

Second that one MattPete, proper car indeed!

The engine is mounted via the 2 studs you can just see poking out the bottom of the tub and then via 2 fishplates at the top as per the standard Keith Duckworth DFV design. The rear bulkhead has been removed as you can see and the cavity in the back of the tub is full of fuel cell, oil tank and the water cross over pipe. There is about a 1" gap between the engine and the bulkhead - just enough to route a -8 hose through. The engine is actually mounted slightly inclined (i.e. back end up).

The following photo is PC-26 but it's exactly the same style of installation.

Thanks for getting this thread back on track (!) Patrick. I have a few pages of similar exploded drawings of Ilmor pumps done, I think, by Ian Watson. I would have been delighted if I'd been asked to do them, but I get the impression that there is an uncontrollable urge that bedevilles engineers every now and then, and they have to do exploded drawings of their designs. I feel a demarcation dispute coming on, Brothers, this is the sort of job destruction up with which we will not put. To the barricades, bring your own brazier...

Something that has just occurred to me - whatever happened to the archive of Ilmor engineering drawings? Were they removed before Mercedes took over, or did they remain? I sincerely hope that they still exist in some form. I've got a load of prints...

Ian did draw the exploded views of the pump pack (for clarity the photos posted here are from my note book and Ian's drawings are of much better quality) which he gave me a year or two back. I had them framed and they hang behind the PC-19. Believe it or not he did them in his spare time (presumably between 11pm and 2am!) during the design of the 265A. You could certainly say that your work has inspired some of us Tony.

As to the rest of the drawings their fate is unknown - they are or were owned by Mercedes. The paper drawings did exist up until 2005, of that I'm sure but they disappeared along with all the micro film copies. The word is that they were disposed of - whether that is the case I can't say for sure.

This is a very interesting picture, together with the one posted by Patrick Morgan above.

I don’t remember removable engine bulkheads in the old aluminium chassis constructions of the Seventies or early Eighties. Surely they were fully riveted and glued to the adjacent panels.

There were sometimes frames attached to the bulkhead outside the chassis, providing the attach points to the engine - Ferraris with the boxer engine comes to mind – and when it wasn’t visible, the stiffening was likely inside the bulkhead panel in the tank department, but you couldn’t possibly remove the whole rear bulkhead like this, unless you wanted to completely disassemble the chassis. Am I right?

How is the engine bulkhead connected to the rest of the chassis in this case, is it completely screwed all around, as it looks like?

Thanks for the pictures and insights - in this thread, but also on TNF - very much appreciated.

How is the engine bulkhead connected to the rest of the chassis in this case, is it completely screwed all around, as it looks like?

Yes, just bolted on. I'm not sure who pioneered this method of construction, but it certainly helps when fitting or replacing a bag tank! I'm snowed under with photographs and life is complicated at the momenr, but I could explore the first time I came across the bolt-on rear bulkhead. However, that wouldn't necessarily be the first time it was used. Someone must know...